Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Long distance shooters have been on the 6.5 mm projectile for a good long time, and the similar 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser caliber is popular enough that some US manufacturers have included that caliber in their line ups:

Long distance shooters have been on the 6.5 mm projectile for a good long time, and the similar 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser caliber is popular enough that some US manufacturers have included that caliber in their line ups:

Do any US gun makers offer 6.5x52mm, or do they not because of its infamy?

__________________Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

Do any US gun makers offer 6.5x52mm, or do they not because of its infamy?

I can't find any listed specifically for the 6.5x52mm.

All I found were:

6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer

6.5x50mm Japanese Arisaka

6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser

6.5x57mm Mauser

6.5-.300 Weatherby Magnum.

It's possible no US manufacturers ever perused the caliber due to the assassination, it would have been not only a bad-taste stupid move, I doubt many would have sold.

The side issue here is that the 6.5x52mm round was exclusive to the Carcano, and by choosing the rifle, Oswald inadvertently left his signature on the assassination as these were the only bullets fired, and recovered in Dealey Plaza (along with his rifle at his place of employment).

I watched Episode 5 of "Tracking Oswald" in which they investigated the possibility of a second shooter to the right of JFK on the Grassy Knoll.

They started with two staples of JFK Conspiracy theory; "back and to the left" and "shots heard coming from the grassy knoll"

1. "Back and to the Left"
This meme was settled fairly quickly. They had a shooter fire a Mannlicher Carcano rifle at the back of a head made of ballistic gel using the same 6.5x52mm rounds at the same range with the same elevation. As I expected (and it seemed to the surprise of the shooter and his spotter) the head jerked backwards towards the shooter. I would like them to have taken this a little further and tried turning the head to the left and tilted down just to ram home the point.

2. "Shots from the Grassy Knoll".
This one was not so easy to settle and took some work. Many ear-witnesses in front of the grassy knoll and on the other side of the road from the grassy knoll (i.e. on the left of the limo) reported hearing four or more shots and that some of them came from the knoll itself i.e. from the grassy knoll. In the programme, they employed a sound engineer who surveyed Dealey Plaza, and then used some sophisticated audio software to work out where all the echoes would have come from and how loud they would have been. They used recordings of a Mannlicher Carcano rifle (again using the same rounds that Oswald used) to establish the sound level right next to the gun, and then placed those sounds (in the software) where the sniper's lair was. The biggest reflector of sound was the flat front of the railway overpass on the other side of the Plaza from the sniper's lair. They were able to establish that the incident sound of the gunshot (direct from the 6th floor) was 88dBA, and the echo from the front of the railway overpass was 84 dBA. It is well understaood that a 3dBA decrease in sound level is barely noticeable to the human ear. In fact, you have to lower the sound level by 5dBA before most listeners report a noticeable or significant change. For all intents and purposes a 4dBa drop from incident to echo would sound so close to the same as makes no difference. However, what I found disappointing is that they didn't take this further and start to do some calculations. So I took a scale drawing of Dealey Plaza for Nov 1963 and did some measurements.

Distances
Sniper's lair (point a) to a point directly across the road from the Grassy Knoll (point b) = 375 ft
Point (a) to the centre front of the Railway Overpass (point c) = 650 ft
Point c back to point b = 320 feet
Speed of sound at sea level 1100 fps.

Observers at (point b) would hear the incident gunshot 0.34 seconds 375/1100s) after it was fired, and would hear the echo (almost as loud) 0.86 seconds (945/1100) after it was fired. Take away the time for the incident shot and they would hear what seems to be two shots in quick succession half a second apart. No wonder people there heard several shots. Additionally, they would definitely be able to tell that the later sound came from a different direction. If they turned their head to look where the first gunshot came from, in the confusion they could easily have gained the impression that the echo of the first gunshot came from the left or right rather than from behind.

I think we can safely conclude (as did the two hosts on the programme) that the theory of a second shooter is dead and buried. The physical evidence they present of the ballistic gel head reaction to a shot from behind, as well as the sound evidence of the echoes accounts for both memes.

All the evidence points to a single shooter... all of it!

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

One of the issues that has been beaten to death in these threads is the vagaries of memory.

Because certain parties refuse to recognize that memories aren't perfect evidence and wish to hand wave away any notion that an individual's recollection of an event or fact may not be perfect, here's something to think about.

Some of the folks posting in this thread never go elsewhere on the site, I go everywhere and I hope this isn't breaking anything in the MA, but there is a thread on the subject of Creepy Commercials.

It wasn't a TV commercial, but in '67 or '68 I recall an magazine print ad for the Shelby Mustang that was just bizarre. It was a line drawing depicting what looked to be a male driver speeding out of a drive way with a woman in the background that appeared to be hysterical running after the car, with a little boy in the foreground that looked to be in immediate danger of being run over by the male driver. I tried to find it before I posted this but it didn't come up on google.

That's really interesting and I'm curious. Do you remember anything about the text in the ad like a punchline or explanation of the scene? I wonder if it could be some confabulation whereby your memory of the ad is somehow significantly different from what you actually saw.

Given the following that that car has, the Shelby enthusiasts and collectors ought to know all about that ad as well as every other ad ever produced.

I just responded:

Considering I saw this once 50 years ago, my recollection is damn close - link to the ad, 1967 Shelby Mustang "Summer Place"

Unfortunately I wasn't able to post a pic of the ad but the above links are available to view for interested parties. I got part of it right, but not everything. I'll let folks make up their minds for themselves.

My point wrt the assassination is that no matter who the observer is, their training, experience etc. memory 50 years on are rarely perfect and there's a far better chance of being incomplete or corrupted by the simple passing of time.

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

Similar to the Sinbad "Genie" movie that a lot of people claim to remember, even with shared details, but never existed.

Plus, how many celebrities die each year where your first reaction is shock that they were still alive?

Because I'm 53 now a lot of life events which were once vivid have begun to fade, and a few are even wrong from retelling over time. I emphasize the story points that keep people interested while leaving out the dull (bit important parts).

I watched Episode 5 of "Tracking Oswald" in which they investigated the possibility of a second shooter to the right of JFK on the Grassy Knoll.

They started with two staples of JFK Conspiracy theory; "back and to the left" and "shots heard coming from the grassy knoll"

1. "Back and to the Left"
This meme was settled fairly quickly. They had a shooter fire a Mannlicher Carcano rifle at the back of a head made of ballistic gel using the same 6.5x52mm rounds at the same range with the same elevation. As I expected (and it seemed to the surprise of the shooter and his spotter) the head jerked backwards towards the shooter. I would like them to have taken this a little further and tried turning the head to the left and tilted down just to ram home the point.

The idea that "back and to the left" is a problem for the single shooter solution to the JFK assassination is based on Hollywood physics. Basically by 1963 people had seen more than a generation of films showing people being knocked back by being hit by bullets. Thus people think that if the head moved back it "must" have been hit in front. This is patent nonsense. If Newton's laws are anything to go on the amount of energy required to knock someone back would have to overcome the inertia of the person being hit with the bullet(s) and that would be enormous. Further the bullet going forward from the gun would have an equal and opposite effect on the person firing the gun thus knocking them back! Since that doesn't generally happen we can dismiss the Hollywood physics.

Although the results of the test with the gel are interesting; and have been done before by the way with similar results. My own opinion of the matter is that the head movements are more the result of spastic muscle movements resulting from the bullet going though JFK's brain than anything else.

The idea that "back and to the left" is a problem for the single shooter solution to the JFK assassination is based on Hollywood physics. Basically by 1963 people had seen more than a generation of films showing people being knocked back by being hit by bullets. Thus people think that if the head moved back it "must" have been hit in front. This is patent nonsense. If Newton's laws are anything to go on the amount of energy required to knock someone back would have to overcome the inertia of the person being hit with the bullet(s) and that would be enormous. Further the bullet going forward from the gun would have an equal and opposite effect on the person firing the gun thus knocking them back! Since that doesn't generally happen we can dismiss the Hollywood physics.

Although the results of the test with the gel are interesting; and have been done before by the way with similar results. My own opinion of the matter is that the head movements are more the result of spastic muscle movements resulting from the bullet going though JFK's brain than anything else.

I agree with this too, although I think that more accounts for the "back" part of his head movement than the "to the left" part.

IMO his head movement to the left is more likely to have been due to the collapse of the pressure cavity in the right side of his skull. Effectively it was like a stick of explosive going off in his head; it blew out the skull on that side, and Newton's Third Law took care of the rest.

On a side note, it seems that MicahJava has done his usual trick of running away from the hard questions. We wait with baited breath for the next fringe reset.

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

I watched Episode 5 of "Tracking Oswald" in which they investigated the possibility of a second shooter to the right of JFK on the Grassy Knoll.

They started with two staples of JFK Conspiracy theory; "back and to the left" and "shots heard coming from the grassy knoll"

1. "Back and to the Left"
This meme was settled fairly quickly. They had a shooter fire a Mannlicher Carcano rifle at the back of a head made of ballistic gel using the same 6.5x52mm rounds at the same range with the same elevation. As I expected (and it seemed to the surprise of the shooter and his spotter) the head jerked backwards towards the shooter. I would like them to have taken this a little further and tried turning the head to the left and tilted down just to ram home the point.

2. "Shots from the Grassy Knoll".
This one was not so easy to settle and took some work. Many ear-witnesses in front of the grassy knoll and on the other side of the road from the grassy knoll (i.e. on the left of the limo) reported hearing four or more shots and that some of them came from the knoll itself i.e. from the grassy knoll. In the programme, they employed a sound engineer who surveyed Dealey Plaza, and then used some sophisticated audio software to work out where all the echoes would have come from and how loud they would have been. They used recordings of a Mannlicher Carcano rifle (again using the same rounds that Oswald used) to establish the sound level right next to the gun, and then placed those sounds (in the software) where the sniper's lair was. The biggest reflector of sound was the flat front of the railway overpass on the other side of the Plaza from the sniper's lair. They were able to establish that the incident sound of the gunshot (direct from the 6th floor) was 88dBA, and the echo from the front of the railway overpass was 84 dBA. It is well understaood that a 3dBA decrease in sound level is barely noticeable to the human ear. In fact, you have to lower the sound level by 5dBA before most listeners report a noticeable or significant change. For all intents and purposes a 4dBa drop from incident to echo would sound so close to the same as makes no difference. However, what I found disappointing is that they didn't take this further and start to do some calculations. So I took a scale drawing of Dealey Plaza for Nov 1963 and did some measurements.

Distances
Sniper's lair (point a) to a point directly across the road from the Grassy Knoll (point b) = 375 ft
Point (a) to the centre front of the Railway Overpass (point c) = 650 ft
Point c back to point b = 320 feet
Speed of sound at sea level 1100 fps.

Observers at (point b) would hear the incident gunshot 0.34 seconds 375/1100s) after it was fired, and would hear the echo (almost as loud) 0.86 seconds (945/1100) after it was fired. Take away the time for the incident shot and they would hear what seems to be two shots in quick succession half a second apart. No wonder people there heard several shots. Additionally, they would definitely be able to tell that the later sound came from a different direction. If they turned their head to look where the first gunshot came from, in the confusion they could easily have gained the impression that the echo of the first gunshot came from the left or right rather than from behind.

I think we can safely conclude (as did the two hosts on the programme) that the theory of a second shooter is dead and buried. The physical evidence they present of the ballistic gel head reaction to a shot from behind, as well as the sound evidence of the echoes accounts for both memes.

All the evidence points to a single shooter... all of it!

Smartcooky, that Tracking Oswald crap will rot your brain. Conspiracy researchers hate it, Lone Nutters hate it. It's literally just a bunch of debunked crap. The "acoustics simulation" they did was junk science. You know what the HSCA acoustics panel did instead of some scam crap with a computer? They roped off Dealey Plaza and used the type of rifle in evidence to fire real rounds into sandbags and recorded how the sound reverberated. Guess what? A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll. I don't know about the feasibility of frontal shots actually striking anything, but the knoll witnesses need a better explanation.

Smartcooky, that Tracking Oswald crap will rot your brain. Conspiracy researchers hate it, Lone Nutters hate it. It's literally just a bunch of debunked crap. The "acoustics simulation" they did was junk science. You know what the HSCA acoustics panel did instead of some scam crap with a computer? They roped off Dealey Plaza and used the type of rifle in evidence to fire real rounds into sandbags and recorded how the sound reverberated. Guess what? A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll. I don't know about the feasibility of frontal shots actually striking anything, but the knoll witnesses need a better explanation.

What is your explanation?

Also, answer all the other outstanding questions you've been running away from.

Also, you'll need to explain why the majority of the witnesses who named a source named only the Depository for ALL the shots; and why the largest minority who named a source named only the knoll for ALL the shots.

They can't both be right. They can both be wrong, but they can't both be right. You like to pretend they are both right, but you need to ignore logic and evidence to conclude that.

If there were shots from multiple positions, wouldn't there be far more than four witnesses who said they heard shots from multiple locations?

And of course, no one said the shots came from any of the buildings behind the motorcade except the Depository.

ALL the witnesses who said they saw a shooter or a weapon pointed to the Depository.

You're going to argue for the canard that the witnesses might have recalled the source being from the last shot they heard. But that explains nothing. Clearly, the last shot came from somewhere. And wherever it came from, if your argument was true, then all the witnesses would point to there as the source of all the shots. So that argument explains exactly nothing. Because all the witnesses don't point to the same location as the source of all the shots.

We're going to await your change of subject or logical fallacy. But it's clear by now you don't have an explanation.

Hank

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

Did you notice the characterisation you applied there. CT's are "researchers" but Lone shooter realists are "nutters".

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It's literally just a bunch of debunked crap. The "acoustics simulation" they did was junk science.

Then tell everyone why it is. Don't just claim it is, demonstrate that it is.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

You know what the HSCA acoustics panel did instead of some scam crap with a computer? They roped off Dealey Plaza and used the type of rifle in evidence to fire real rounds into sandbags and recorded how the sound reverberated. Guess what? A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll.

And that compared to witness testimony in what way?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I don't know about the feasibility of frontal shots actually striking anything,

Agreed. You do not.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

but the knoll witnesses need a better explanation.

Explanation of what? That their imaginary gunman was real despite all evidence to the contrary?

__________________Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Did you notice the characterisation you applied there. CT's are "researchers" but Lone shooter realists are "nutters".

And of course, that's the problem. Not the biased terminology that MicahJava uses to describe those who think Oswald alone shot JFK (nutters), but the fact that they do not view themselves as "assassination researchers", determined to uncover the truth, but rather, they view themselves as "conspiracy researchers", determined to establish a conspiracy.

As such, anything they find that supports the "Oswald did it alone and unaided" argument -- no matter how well-supported it is -- will be ignored by them. Anything they discovery that seems to argue for a conspiracy or cover-up -- no matter how thin or specious the reasoning -- will be trumpeted as exposing the conspiracy and/or cover-up.

"Conspiracy researchers" (MicahJava's own words) says more about their bias -- and MicahJava's -- than he might otherwise care to admit.

They don't want the truth. They want a conspiracy.

Hank

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

Actually, the unmitigated crap you post here is more likely to rot brains

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Conspiracy researchers nutcases hate it

FTFY

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Lone Nutters hate it

Really. Well I'm one of those "Lone nutters" (as you have characterized us) and I think they have got this scenario pretty well right

(Actually, we aren't "lone nutters" we are people who look at THE EVIDENCE and go where it takes us, your fellow conspiritards are the nutters!

Originally Posted by MicahJava

It's literally just a bunch of debunked crap.

Then debunk it... here, now. Do your own tests and prove they are wrong... otherwise, shut up.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

The "acoustics simulation" they did was junk science.

Then debunk it... here, now. Do your own tests and prove they are wrong... otherwise, shut up.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

You know what the HSCA acoustics panel did instead of some scam crap with a computer? They roped off Dealey Plaza and used the type of rifle in evidence to fire real rounds into sandbags and recorded how the sound reverberated. Guess what? A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll.

Prove it then. Lets have the official results of those tests and some actual documentation of the tests they did complete with a conclusions that states "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" .

Do this, or shut up. They are your only choices.

NOTE: Links to idiot JFK conspiracy websites are not evidence. They will be ignored/not followed.

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Really. Well I'm one of those "Lone nutters" (as you have characterized us) and I think they have got this scenario pretty well right

(Actually, we aren't "lone nutters" we are people who look at THE EVIDENCE and go where it takes us, your fellow conspiritards are the nutters!

A little background for those relatively new to the subject:

The "lone nutters" terminology goes back to Prodigy in the early 1990's at least (as far as when I first encountered it). The "lone nutter" (or just "nutter" for short) doesn't apply to the people who think Oswald shot JFK, but to Oswald, as viewed through the Warren Commission's eyes. They more or less characterized Oswald as a "lone nut", and found no evidence of conspiracy. Hence, those who believe as the WC did, that Oswald committed the assassination alone, and had no discernable political motivation, were called "lone nutters" (for believing Oswald was a "lone nut" assassin).

Those arguing for conspiracy back on Prodigy were "conspiracy loons" (or just "loons" for short).

I hasten to add that the discourse back then was far less rancorous, and I always took both terms as said at least partly (if not wholly) in jest.

Somehow, the "Lone Nutter" terminology has survived three decades to describe those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, but the "Conspiracy Loon" terminology has fallen by the wayside. It may be time to resurrect it - especially as the viewpoints of those who believe in conspiracy has gotten further and further out there (altered films, altered documents, altered witness testimony, altered hard evidence, altered body, altered x-rays and autopsy photos -- basically everything that points to Oswald is now argued is fabricated).

"Conspiracy loon" may be more accurate nowadays than ever before.

I never felt the "Lone Nutter" terminology was accurate, as I never viewed Oswald as a nut. A guy who believed in communistic ideals, yes. A guy who devoted about half his short life to those ideals, yes. A guy willing to lay down his life for those ideals, yes.

But a nut? No.

He knew right from wrong. He knew taking life was wrong. He knew killing Walker, Kennedy and Tippit was wrong. But he was willing to do that anyway to further his ideals (and yes, I know he failed to kill Walker. I feel I need to mention that otherwise MicahJava will argue that point, and ignore everything else I said).

Oswald had the means, motive, and opportunity. All the evidence points to him. He was a lone assassin, but not a lone nut (unlike a Hinckley or Chapman, for instance).

Hank

PS: Jean Davison has posted here in the past, and she was on Prodigy as well. A word from her would be appreciated, as far as her recollection of the terminology used back then.

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

Prove it then. Lets have the official results of those tests and some actual documentation of the tests they did complete with a conclusions that states "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" .

Do this, or shut up. They are your only choices.

NOTE: Links to idiot JFK conspiracy websites are not evidence. They will be ignored/not followed.

The "lone nutters" terminology goes back to Prodigy in the early 1990's at least (as far as when I first encountered it). The "lone nutter" (or just "nutter" for short) doesn't apply to the people who think Oswald shot JFK, but to Oswald, as viewed through the Warren Commission's eyes. They more or less characterized Oswald as a "lone nut", and found no evidence of conspiracy. Hence, those who believe as the WC did, that Oswald committed the assassination alone, and had no discernable political motivation, were called "lone nutters" (for believing Oswald was a "lone nut" assassin).

The term for those arguing for conspiracy back on Prodigy was "conspiracy loons" (or just "loons" for short).

I hasten to add that the discourse back then was far less rancorous, and I always took both terms as said at least part in jest.

Somehow, the "Lone Nutter" terminology has survived three decades to describe those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, but the "Conspiracy Loon" terminology has fallen by the wayside. It may be time to resurrect it - especially as the viewpoints of those who believe in conspiracy has gotten further and further out there (altered films, altered documents, altered testimony, altered hard evidence, altered body).

"Conspiracy loon" may be more accurate nowadays than ever before.

I never felt the "Lone Nutter" terminology was accurate, as I never viewed Oswald as a nut. A guy who believed in communistic ideals, yes. A guy who devoted about half his short life to those ideals, yes. A guy willing to lay down his live for those ideals, yes.

But a nut? No.

He knew right from wrong. He knew taking life was wrong. He knew killing Walker, Kennedy and Tippit was wrong. But he was willing to do that anyway to further his ideals (and yes, I know he failed to kill Walker. I feel I need to mention that otherwise MicahJava will argue that point, and ignore everything else I said).

Oswald had the means, motive, and opportunity. He was a lone assassin, but not a lone nut (unlike a Hinckley or Chapman, for instance).

Hank

Speaking as someone who was once down the rabbit hole on this particular conspiracy I think I can relate with some authority what it was like, at least for me, and what I see when I look back on that time.

The rabbit hole is an echo chamber; you only hear what you are saying, reflected back to you by others, who are also down the rabbit hole, saying the same things back to you. Also, you only hear what you want to hear; anything that does not fit into your delusion, is treated as "white noise"; a background hiss with no substance. The rabbit hole has become a trap, and you are locked in by a self-reinforcing delusion.

One of the worst aspects of this trap are that you don't even realise that it is a trap, and you don't understand that you are caught in it. IMO, there are three barriers to getting yourself out of the rabbit hole.

1. You will have to give up one or more a firmly held beliefs - the deeper down the hole you are, the more firmly you are likely to hold those beliefs, and the more firmly the trap has you snared.

2. You know that if you admit you were wrong all along, you are going to suffer a massive loss of face - you are going to look like a complete fool.

3. Reason and logic. You didn't fall into the hole using reason or logic, so you cannot reason your way out of it even if you wanted to... and you don't want to.

I can't speak for others, but there are a couple of "aha moments" that did it for me, and one of those was understanding what happened to the lost bullet. I can't even say why it was an "aha moment", all I know is that it triggered something that made me look a bit closer at what I believed, and I started to resolve the white noise into information. Reading the Jacob Cohen article I mentioned earlier was another "aha moment".

NOTE: I do wonder how Eric Hunt managed to claw his way out of his particular delusion

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.

BTW: Again, they were firing real rounds into sandbags in Dealey Plaza. The acoustics of a traveling supersonic bullet applies to this test.

This test was deeply flawed for a couple of very important reasons

Confirmation bias.
All the test subjects were there specifically to perform that test. They knew that the gunshots were coming from the TSBD, and were primed to expect the shots when they came. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 the gunshots came as a total shock; they were wholly unprepared for what happened.

No Panic.
All the test subjects were prepared for what was happening, and calmly went about listening to determine where they thought the shots were coming from. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 it was sheer panic. People were running around in all directions like headless chickens, trying to take cover; they were wholly were unprepared for what happened.

The testing done in the programme has it all over the flawed experiment you have linked to because it takes the human error out of the equation. There is no confirmation bias and there are no panicked people to screw around with the results. The software programme they used is called EASE (Enhanced Acoustic Simulator for Engineers). This not junk science at all it is a proven software suite that sound engineers use to asses and design auditoriums and sound stages for concerts and movie studios. It graphically displays accurate predictions of real-world acoustics. It provides quantifiable, measurable and verifiable figures. Your human witnesses cannot quantify how loud a sound is, especially a sound as sharp and short as a gunshot. The software can give you actual predicted dBA sound levels that can be checked and verified. When the software says that the sound level at a particular point is 88dBA, you can take that to the bank.

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.

BTW: Again, they were firing real rounds into sandbags in Dealey Plaza. The acoustics of a traveling supersonic bullet applies to this test.

Wow, a report from 1978, using equipment from 1978.

Not a modern report using modern sound equipment like the TV show.

The TV show used technology used by civic officials to plan ahead for public works, model the sound off of non-existence buildings to plan for future noise mitigation, and even help get the best sound from your recording studio. It's functioning real-world tech.

Confirmation bias.
All the test subjects were there specifically to perform that test. They knew that the gunshots were coming from the TSBD, and were primed to expect the shots when they came. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 the gunshots came as a total shock; they were wholly unprepared for what happened.

No Panic.
All the test subjects were prepared for what was happening, and calmly went about listening to determine where they thought the shots were coming from. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 it was sheer panic. People were running around in all directions like headless chickens, trying to take cover; they were wholly were unprepared for what happened.

The testing done in the programme has it all over the flawed experiment you have linked to because it takes the human error out of the equation. There is no confirmation bias and there are no panicked people to screw around with the results. The software programme they used is called EASE (Enhanced Acoustic Simulator for Engineers). This not junk science at all it is a proven software suite that sound engineers use to asses and design auditoriums and sound stages for concerts and movie studios. It graphically displays accurate predictions of real-world acoustics. It provides quantifiable, measurable and verifiable figures. Your human witnesses cannot quantify how loud a sound is, especially a sound as sharp and short as a gunshot. The software can give you actual predicted dBA sound levels that can be checked and verified. When the software says that the sound level at a particular point is 88dBA, you can take that to the bank.

Okay, sure, fifty percent of the witnesses hallucinated the same exact thing.

Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.

Did they use really BIG type? That's 27 pages you're citing, and only 67 letters and spaces.

And tell us what the expert conclusion was -- not your conclusion -- the expert conclusion. Once more you're substituting your expertise (of which you have none) for the expertise of the experts who by dint of education, training, and experience designed and carried out the test.

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

Okay, sure, fifty percent of the witnesses hallucinated the same exact thing heard exactly what they expected to hear.

FTFY

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Tell me Hank, do you think being shot down by your own link is anything like being hoisted with your own petard?

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Okay, sure, fifty percent of the witnesses hallucinated the same exact thing.

Straw man...

It reminds me of the joke about the guy who bought a German Shepard dog as a puppy, and from the time he was a puppy, trained it to attacked a balloon caricature of a robber with a gun.

And it appeared to work well, as the dog would attack when he blew his whistle... until one day, a real robber broke into the guy's house, he blew his whistle frantically, and the dog tore the balloon caricature into shreds.

That's exactly what you do, time and time again.

Nobody suggested hallucinations had anything to do with it. You're mining the responses of Robert Harris now full-time.

He too would pretend there were only two possible choices, conspiracy or hallucinations / delusions.

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

Tell me Hank, do you think being shot down by your own link is anything like being hoisted with your own petard?

Beg Pardon? Did you mean to direct that at me?

Or did you mean "Tell me, MicahJava"?

Hank

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

Tell me Hank, do you think being shot down by your own link is anything like being hoisted with your own petard?

Excuse me, I was citing the actual data collected by their experiments. What does the data show? The fact that a gunshot creates echoes and reverberations does not mean that it cannot be easy to locate it's general direction. The HSCA acoustics study proved this. If you want to point out the flaws in their methodology, maybe you'd add more crowd noise, more witnesses, more motorcycle backfire, etc. then go ahead but this is actual scientific evidence that acoustics within Dealey Plaza CANNOT be used to explain the grassy knoll earwitnesses.

3. Reason and logic. You didn't fall into the hole using reason or logic, so you cannot reason your way out of it even if you wanted to... and you don't want to.

Speaking for myself, I did use reason and logic to become a conspiracy theorist, and did use reason and logic to get myself out of that thought process.

By the late 1960s / early 1970s I had read many books on the assassination and had convinced myself of a conspiracy ... but that was based on the facts as presented in those conspiracy books.

But in many of those cases the conclusions in some of the conspiracy books contradicted what I was reading in other conspiracy books.

I was determined to find out what really happened... I needed to read their source material for myself. Since all those books (like Mark Lane's, Harold Weisberg's, and Sylvia Meagher's) all utilized the 26 volumes of evidence to reach their conclusions, I knew that's where I needed to start.

I didn't have a copy of those (I bought them later) but I did have access to them at my university and later, a major metropolitan library had a copy of the 26 volumes.

After the HSCA issued its report and accompanying volumes, I purchased those from the Government Printing Office and also bought a copy of the Warren Commission 26 volumes (setting me back $2500 at the time) from THE PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP.

I started reading the 26 volumes in my spare time and by the time I had finished, I understood what happened.

The conspiracy authors were taking their claims out of context to make mountains out of molehills, or even digging a hole in flat land to make some other flat land look like a molehill.

What was present as facts in conspiracy books weren't facts. Once I knew the true facts (and not as they were painted by conspiracy authors) it was relatively easy to understand what happened. But only if I had the facts, and not what was conveyed as the facts by the conspiracy authors.

Hank

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from.

BOOM! That sound you just heard was your argument exploding in your face.

If it's not easy to locate the direction, you just explained why a decent minority thought shots came from the grassy knoll. Despite the only shooter seen that day being in the Depository, and despite the only weapon found that day being in the Depository, and despite the one shells found that day being in the Depository, and despite the only bullet or bullet fragments traceable to a weapon being traceable to the weapon found in the Depository. For the knoll witnesses, we have "The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from."

Gee, no hallucinations necessary. Just echoes.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

No wonder you suggested mass hallucination.

The only one who suggested hallucination was YOU:

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Okay, sure, fifty percent of the witnesses hallucinated the same exact thing.

Nobody else suggested hallucination. Except Robert Harris (previously cited) on a different subject.

Hank

__________________I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto

I was asking your opinion, given what MicahJava did, i.e. posted a link which pulled the rug out from under his own feet.

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Excuse me, I was citing the actual data collected by their experiments. What does the data show? The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from.

I noticed you drew your own conclusions (rather then those of the experts) and carefully excluded the part which undermined your position

Originally Posted by MicahJava

No wonder you suggested mass hallucination.

Err, no. "hallucinations" is your ball of wax, not mine.

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

BOOM! That sound you just heard was your argument exploding in your face.

If it's not easy to locate the direction, you just explained why a decent minority thought shots came from the grassy knoll. Despite the only shooter seen that day being in the Depository, and despite the only weapon found that day being in the Depository, and despite the one shells found that day being in the Depository, and despite the only bullet or bullet fragments traceable to a weapon being traceable to the weapon found in the Depository. For the knoll witnesses, we have "The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from."

Gee, no hallucinations necessary. Just echoes.

The only one who suggested hallucination was YOU:

Nobody else suggested hallucination. Except Robert Harris (previously cited) on a different subject.

Hank

Ha! worst type ever. The type version is true and the corrected version is also true. But I'm getting tired of your excuses to not address the data collected by the two observers standing in various locations within Dealey Plaza and report where they believed the sound of a gunshot originated.

Speaking for myself, I did use reason and logic to become a conspiracy theorist, and did use reason and logic to get myself out of that thought process.

By the late 1960s / early 1970s I had read many books on the assassination and had convinced myself of a conspiracy ... but that was based on the facts as presented in those conspiracy books.

But in many of those cases the conclusions in some of the conspiracy books contradicted what I was reading in other conspiracy books.

I was determined to find out what really happened... I needed to read their source material for myself. Since all those books (like Mark Lane's, Harold Weisberg's, and Sylvia Meagher's) all utilized the 26 volumes of evidence to reach their conclusions, I knew that's where I needed to start.

I didn't have a copy of those (I bought them later) but I did have access to them at my university and later, a major metropolitan library had a copy of the 26 volumes.

After the HSCA issued its report and accompanying volumes, I purchased those from the Government Printing Office and also bought a copy of the Warren Commission 26 volumes (setting me back $2500 at the time) from THE PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP.

I started reading the 26 volumes in my spare time and by the time I had finished, I understood what happened.

The conspiracy authors were taking their claims out of context to make mountains out of molehills, or even digging a hole in flat land to make some other flat land look like a molehill.

What was present as facts in conspiracy books weren't facts. Once I knew the true facts (and not as they were painted by conspiracy authors) it was relatively easy to understand what happened. But only if I had the facts, and not what was conveyed as the facts by the conspiracy authors.

Hank

The Warren Commission accepted the EOP wound but did not reconcile several issues with a high-powered round entering there with the single-assassin theory.

Ha! worst type ever. The type version is true and the corrected version is also true. But I'm getting tired of your excuses to not address the data collected by the two observers standing in various locations within Dealey Plaza and report where they believed the sound of a gunshot originated.

Me saying that you couldn't look any more foolish than you already do shouldn't have been taken as a challenge.

Excuse me, I was citing the actual data collected by their experiments. What does the data show? The fact that a gunshot creates echoes and reverberations does not mean that it cannot be easy to locate it's general direction. The HSCA acoustics study proved this. If you want to point out the flaws in their methodology, maybe you'd add more crowd noise, more witnesses, more motorcycle backfire, etc. then go ahead but this is actual scientific evidence that acoustics within Dealey Plaza CANNOT be used to explain the grassy knoll earwitnesses.

Further, from the link that you provided!

"4.1 Test Conditions

The shot sequence was unknown to both of the observers. Because repeats of certain shots were requested during the sequence, I was also uncertain - despite knowing the planned sequence.

We requested three motorcycles to be running during the test to provide some background noise that would approximate the original listening conditions in Dealey Plaza. Unfortunately, these newer motorcycles were not very noisy, but the shots were so loud that any reasonable level of background noise would have been low in comparison with the shots themselves. Our listening conditions were, therefore, essentially representative of those at the time of the assassination, except for our being able to hear some very-low-level, long-delay echoes that originally might have been inaudible.

Our observers did know that there were only two possible locations for the marksman, whereas there was considerably more uncertainty on this issue at the time or the assassination.

Signal uncertainty of this kind generally does not seriously degrade the accuracy or Judgments, but it does depend on the number or potential alternatives. In this case, as we shall see, the localization reports made by the trained listeners were, for the most part, or general areas, rather than specific windows or a building. The total number or potential locations was not, therefore, large and, thus, was likely to be representative of localization responses given at the time of the assassination.

4.2 Analysis of Observers’ Localization Responses I
The descriptive comments made by the observers are difficult to compare with any degree of precision. However, there was clear agreement in their reports with respect to the apparent loudness or the sounds and echoes and the apparent size of the acoustic image. After each test shot, we asked the two observers to guess whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or the knoll, independent of what the apparent locus might be. Table IV is an analysis of this forced-choice data."

Now, if am understanding this table correctly, three sequences of shots were fired randomly from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll. The test subjects were told only to choose between TSBD or Grassy Knoll as the source of each shot

In the first sequence
Dr Wightman correctly identified the locations of all 12 shots
Dr. McFadden correctly identified 11 out of 12 locations... he got one wrong

In the second sequence
Dr Wightman correctly identified 11 out of 15 locations... he got four wrong
Dr. McFadden correctly identified 14 out of 15 locations... he got one wrong

In the third sequence
Dr Wightman correctly identified the 19 out of 25 locations... he got six wrong
Dr. McFadden correctly identified 23 out of 25 locations... he got two wrong

So, out of 57 shots altogether, Dr, Wightman misidentified the location of the shots ten times (17.5% fail rate) and Dr. McFadden misidentified the locations of the shot 4 times (7% fail rate). Under ideal conditions, knowing that the test shots were only coming from either the 6th floor of the TSBD or the Grassy knoll, these two expert witnesses, still managed to get it wrong 14 times between them.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

But I'm getting tired of your excuses to not address the data collected by the two observers standing in various locations within Dealey Plaza and report where they believed the sound of a gunshot originated.

Well, I've just done that for him... and guess what? It doesn't support your claim at all. Do you still stand by your claim that a shot from the TSBD could not be mistaken for a shot from the Grassy Knoll?

__________________As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

What are you talking about? If the noise caused by a subsonic bullet moving through the air is louder than the noise caused by the muzzle blast, the sound of the shot will be distorted. And earlier I provided a book that talked about how silencers can disperse the sound of the muzzle blast itself.

I first heard of this "opposite direction" phenomenon on the JFK section of the London Education Forum from user and gun enthusiast Robert Prudhomme. I Googled and browsed around gun forums and saw corroboration for this, where not only can the use of noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition distort the noise of a shot to make it difficult to locate it's origin, but in some cases it can actually sound like the shots are coming from the opposite direction of the shooter. Here are some gun nuts talking about it:

snipped...

My answer, from March 2017

Your complete lack of knowledge in the subject matter. You are trying to find (in your mind) a seemingly plausible explanation of facts not in evidence.

My first hands-on experience with suppressors was in the 1960's. I held a SOT license from the late 1970's until the late '80's and manufactured cans. My first hand knowledge of the subject matter is extensive.

You persist in attempting to crowbar nonsense into the established evidence based on a patent misunderstanding of how individuals perceive sound.

A suppressor as a mechanical device is not the controlling factor that confuses earwitnesses. Earwitnesses are fully capable of mis-identifying sounds and the source of those sounds.

That is why the earwitness accounts you wish to hang your hat on are pretty much worthless.

The smartest suppressor designer of my generation had a sales technique that was and is unprecedented. He would take people on a tour of various areas of New Orleans and fire examples of his suppressed pistols in public areas and inside a particular hotel. One of the venues involved firing a pistol from a balcony into a safe backstop over the heads of people doing their thing down at street level.

The people gettin' their drink on paid no attention to the overhead projectiles, sonic and sub-sonic.

Suppressed or non-suppressed, individuals often make mistakes regarding sound.

Earwitness accounts are wholly subjective. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be so many accounts of gunshots sounding like firecrackers.

The earwitnesses involved filter what they heard through their experience, and more people are familiar with the sounds of firecrackers than are experienced in the sounds of gunfire and the sound of a passing supersonic or sub-sonic projectile.

XXXXXX

MJ should I just repost everything you ignored last time around on this issue?

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.